Hey Christian(s)

[POI]

I am, however, interested in proving my religion (Christianity) right.

For Debate: How might one actually go about proving Christianity right? Further, can and has Christianity already been proven, or, is it instead maybe a faith-based position?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Nothing is ever proven in any field of human history, except for things that follow tautologically. So perhaps what you’re really asking is whether we can have justified beliefs. The answer is yes, we can. But do all Christians have justified beliefs? No.

This comes down to two key factors: one’s ontology (the nature of being and existence) and epistemology (the theory of knowledge). From these foundational views, individuals can then build their arguments for Christianity. For instance, if one’s epistemology holds that experiential knowledge is valid—meaning that personal, lived experiences can serve as legitimate sources of knowledge—then someone may have a justified belief in Christianity based on their spiritual or transformative experiences.

Are you saying here that personal experiences are what make Christianity true? (i.e.) If I feel I ever had/have a 'personal Jesus' experience(s), this is what makes Christianity true for me? If so, are there any other 'proofs'? If not, how might one go about validating their own felt 'Jesus experience(s)'?

They could support this belief with historical evidence, such as the minimal facts argument, which relies on well-established historical data to argue for the truth of key events in Christian history, like the resurrection of Jesus. If their epistemology includes the notion that history itself is a form of knowledge, then they would have a solid basis for using historical evidence to support their beliefs.

You would first have to deem the Bible as a reliable and trustworthy historical document. Is it?

Otherwise, outside the claims made by the Bible, do we really have anything outside the Bible? If so, what? And, is/are this/these source(s) reliable?

However, one’s ontological and epistemological commitments also shape how they interpret and assess such evidence. If their worldview suggests that all knowledge must be based on empirical evidence or scientific observation, then their justification for Christianity may rely more heavily on arguments grounded in logic, moral reasoning, or philosophical principles.

How exactly might Christianity pass the litmus test here?

But for those whose epistemology is open to experiential or historical knowledge, the argument for Christianity becomes a combination of personal 1) experience, 2) historical documentation, and 3) logical coherence.

Do you need all three? If not, why not?